The Obama administration finally admits that their drone program has targeted US citizens.

I want to be clear that regardless of nationality, race or spirituality, no human life is worth more or less than any other. So the recent admission that four Americans have been killed by US drones should be no more or less upsetting than hearing about 4 Iraqis, but unfortunately that is not how the mainstream media presents these issues.

On Wednesday Bloomberg reported that “U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens in counterterrorism operations overseas since 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder said today, the Obama administration’s first public acknowledgment of those killings.”

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States specifically targeted and killed American citizens. You can read the letter in full HERE.

Holder said Samir Kahn, Abdul Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan Mohammed were not targeted by the United States but he did not add more details about their deaths. The letter represents the first U.S. admission that the four were killed in counterterror strikes even though their deaths had been reported in the media.

As the alternative media was reporting for a long time Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16 year old boy who was assassinated by a US drone for having a father who was speaking ill of the American government.

“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business,” Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify “an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial — and, he’s underage, he’s a minor.”

That same press secretary admitted upon leaving the administration that he was told to pretend that the drone program didn’t exist.

“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists,” said Gibbs. That policy of secrecy, Gibbs said, made it difficult to deal with reporters asking about the program. Describing one such notable exchange in 2009 with Major Garrett, then of Fox News, Gibbs said, “I would get a question like that and literally I couldn’t tell you what Major asked, because once I figured out it was about the drone program, I realize I’m not supposed to talk about it.”

The full extent of this drone program may not be known for years to come, but it does seem that the alternative media is forcing some evidence of the truth to come out.

Public schools in cooperation with the department of homeland security are now teaching kids safety measures, and advising that they seek relief in FEMA camps in a time of crisis. But are these post disaster relief camps, or military internment camps?

FEMA disk given to school children (Photo: Cassius Methyl, Intellihub.com)

FEMA , the Red Cross, and the department of homeland security are now using taxpayer money to educate children in public schools about ‘getting ready for disaster’. But why would government agencies hold interest in this? Is it because they want schools to be safer, or because they want citizens to flee to FEMA camps in a time of crisis?

A disaster that very well could be orchestrated by a government agency, one might add. So what are these ‘disaster relief’ camps like? A quick google search for ‘FEMA camps’ would turn up thousands of results. Yet contrary to what one may think, leaving these camps may not be voluntary.

In fact, a leaked document signed by Joyce E. Morrow (administrative assistant to the secretary of the army) suggests that disaster relief camps may actually be military internment camps. The document is titled ‘internment and resettlement operations’ , and it describes these camps in great detail, stating that ‘civil support is the department of defense support to civil authorities for domestic emergencies. Civil support includes operations that address the consequences of natural or man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks, and incidents in the U.S.’ .

To sum it up, this leaked document confirms plans by the department of defense to operate internment prison camps for citizens during a crisis . But why would they need a crisis to imprison large amounts of people, and why would they imprison large amounts of people in the first place? But the real question is, do these prison camps tie in with FEMA?

And if so, is FEMA preparing children in public schools to accept going to an internment camp if there is a disaster? Perhaps the military internment camps to be used for disasters, and the FEMA camps to be used in times of crisis, are unrelated. But given the recent NDAA , allowing for the legal indefinite detainment of American citizens, and the political weather, it seems this isn’t such a far out possibility. It isn’t a nice issue to think about, but spreading the word about the possibility of an American holocaust would be arguably the most effective way to stop such an event.

On December 6, 1963, Life magazine published an article by Peter’s Mandel’s father, Paul Mandel, relating to the Kennedy assassination, which had taken place on November 22, 1963. In that article, Paul Mandel wrote the following:

The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it.

The 8mm film to which Paul Mandel is referring is the famous Zapruder film, which Life magazine purchased from Abraham Zapruder for $150,000 during the weekend of the assassination and then prevented the public from seeing for many years. It wasn’t until 1975 that a bootleg copy of the film was shown on television for the first time on Geraldo Rivera’s show “Good Night America.”

By watching the film, it was easy for people to notice one glaring fact: Contrary to Paul Mandel’s statement in his article, Kennedy never turned his body around to the right to enable the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot him in the throat.

Yesterday, David Lifton, author of the 1992 New York Times bestselling book on the assassination, Best Evidence, posted the following comment beneath Peter Mandel’s Huffington Post article:

When I was writing Best Evidence (circa 1977-1979), I tried to contact Paul Mandel about his story in Life magazine (12/6/63 “End to Nagging Rumors, The Six Critical Seconds”) which said that the Zapruder film showed that JFK turned almost all the way around, exposing his throat to the alleged “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and that was why President Kennedy had an entry wound at the front of his throat. How could he write such a thing, I wondered, since the published Zapruder frames showed no such “turn.” So I wanted to speak with Mandel and publish his explanation. Unfortunately, I soon learned he had died more than 10 years before. I concluded that someone gave him false information as to what the film showed. I am well aware of Paul Mandel’s fine credentials as a writer–and am left (along with many others) to wonder just how such a serious error was made–and without any published explanation in the days, weeks, and months following (and not even after the Warren Report was published in September, 1964). Given the reliance the American people placed on what they read in Life magazine, some sort of “errata” should have been published at the time.

Peter Mandel raises the issue because he’s grown weary of the many references to his father and this episode in JFK assassination literature. The issue is obviously important to him because his Huffington Post article is similar to an article he had published in the Boston Globe five years ago, on the 45th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

Another interesting twist to this tale is related in a fascinating article entitled “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration,” by Douglas P. Horne, published on LewRockell.com on May 19, 2012. Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) during the 1990s. The ARRB was formed in the wake of the public uproar raised by Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” and specifically over the large veil of secrecy that enshrouded official records relating to the JFK assassination. The ARRB’s job was to get those records declassified and shown to the public, a job it failed to complete given that, for some reason, the CIA steadfastly continues its refusal to release 1,171 top-secret CIA records relating to the Kennedy assassination in time for the 50th anniversary of the assassination.

While people were led to believe that the Zapruder film had been in the hands of Life magazine after its purchase of the film, such was actually not the case. As Horne details in his article, during the weekend of the assassination, in a top-secret operation, the film actually ended up in the hands of the CIA, both at the agency’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C., and its top-secret photographic lab at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, New York.

In his 5-volume series on the Kennedy assassination, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne points out another false statement in the Paul Mandel article in Life magazine. Referring to one of the Dallas physicians who treated Kennedy, Mandel wrote, “The description of the President’s two wounds by a Dallas doctor who tried to save him have added to the rumors. The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head.” In an excerpt from his book posted on an online 2009 forum entitled “Paul Mandel and the Zapruder Film,” Horne points out: “This is completely untrue; no Parkland hospital physician ever said this. On the contrary, they all spoke only of seeing an exit defect in the back of JFK’s head.”

Obvious questions arise: Why did Paul Mandel state that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy turning around when the film shows no such thing? Had he seen a different version of the Zapruder film prior to writing his article? If he did see the film in its present form, was it just an honest mistake or did someone order him to say that? Or did someone from the CIA tell him that that was what the film showed and, if so, why would the CIA do that? Did Life magazine ask him for his sources? Why didn’t Life or Mandel ever publish a correction or an explanation, especially given that Life ended up with the film after the CIA was finished with it?

Long story short, the supervisor showed up and made the cop give me back my pump. The ambulance showed up and I went with them because I was then bleeding where the port is.

This isn’t something I ever thought would happen to me. The truth is, I read your web site and Facebook page all the time, so I thought I was prepared. I should have stood my ground, but I was caught off guard and didn’t remember everything this really kick ass site taught me. My mom and me moved to Utah from Arkansas last year and everyone is really nice here, except the police.

I was just exiting the gym in SLC on Saturday May 18th 2013 at about 7:30 PM. I was walking to my truck, then standing outside my car taking a phone call when a SLCPD (Salt Lake City) officer asked me why I was loitering in a parking lot.

I explained that I was just leaving the gym and taking a phone call, and I’d be on my way soon. He told me to basically shut up and made me give him my ID. I asked if I was under arrest and I was about to leave. He said that he didn’t like my “SHITTY” attitude and he took my phone away, which was still connected to my mom, and spun me around to face his police car where he started patting me down. I asked again if I was under arrest and if I could go; That’s when he handcuffed me. When I was illegally handcuffed, he ran his hand ran over my side where my insulin pump is and he asked what it was. I told him it was my insulin pump. He looked at it and said he never saw one like that before; I said that they all look almost identical. I also told him right away that a tube runs from the pump to the port in my belly, and to please be very careful. He told me to shut up and look forward. His hand went over the port and I instinctively moved my hand to guard it. He literally ripped the pump off my belt, pulled the tube out of the port and smashed me into the hood of his car. He yelled into my ear that if I moved again I would get “the shit tazed out of me.” He went through my gym bag and found my stash of vitamins and other stuff I use, (no, not drugs!) like protein powder in a shaker jug and a soft sided cooler where I keep a spare insulin tube, glucose and other medications. I even have a tattoo that says that I am diabetic, and an indent bracelet that says the same thing.

I told him that I need continuous insulin, to which he said that the device is not an insulin pump and that I probably use it for steroids. I asked, “Does it look like I use steroids?” and he got even madder at me. Thankfully, a buddy from the gym came outside and tried to help, but the cop told him to, “Get the fuck back,” and started walking me to the back seat of his car. I asked what I was arrested for. He said that I wasn’t under arrest, but that I was being detained until he could verify the prescription on my insulin and other medicine.

My mom showed up, all mad, and started yelling at the cop. She saw my insulin pump on the ground, picked it up, and asks why it was not attached to me. He said that it was for steroids. My mom pulled out her nursing credentials and said that insulin is a hormone, not a steroid, and that I need it or I could die. She called 9-1-1 to get an ambulance on the scene and to get a supervisor there to get me out of there.

Long story short, the supervisor showed up and made the cop give me back my pump. The ambulance showed up and I went with them because I was then bleeding where the port is.

I completely forgot to record this with my iPhone, but I will get the police reports and share those. I really would like to hear what the people on the website have to say, in case it happens to me again, or to anyone else – especially when it comes to medical devices like an insulin pump.

An exciting and new water treatment breakthrough has been announced that will now make the removal of fluoride from the drinking water supplies of the world’s poorest people more affordable than ever.

Researchers from Rajasthan University in India have discovered that the Tulasi plant, also known as Holy Basil, can be used to significantly reduce the amount of fluoride in drinking water.

At present, the most reliable methods used to remove excessive fluoride from drinking water are either too expensive or not suitable for the environments where they are needed most.

The method discovered by researchers from Rajasthan University is safe, cheap and readily available, making it an ideal alternative for communities who can’t afford to use the more advance techniques of removing fluoride that are readily available in the west.

AN experiment was conducted in the Yellareddyguda village of Narketpally Mandal. The researches soaked 75mg’s of Tulasi leaves in 100ml of water that contained 7.4 parts per million of fluoride in the water.

After only soaking the Tulasi leaves for eight hours, it was discovered that the level of fluoride in the water was reduced from 7.4 parts per million, to only 1.1 parts per million.

At present, the world health organisation recommends that the safe level of fluoride in drinking water is between 0.5 to 1 parts per million.

This new water treatment option will now provide the world’s poorest people an opportunity to remove excessive fluoride from their drink water supplies.

However, more research is still needed to identify and validate the effectiveness of using Tulasi leaves as a means of removing fluoride from drinking water supplies.

CONSIDERING the cost prohibitive nature of other more reliable water treatment techniques, if the Tulasi plant is conclusively proven to be effective in removing fluoride from drinking water, then we may witness a revolution in water treatment that will greatly benefit the world’s poorest people.

Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report

So the big question everyone wonders is: does the NSA read my e-mail? Based on the public statements of the former director of the National Security Agency, Justice Department attorneys, and others involved in NSA operations—as well as confidential information provided to the authors and verified independently by officials read in to the programs—here is how to tell if the NSA spies on you:

The National Security Agency is the primary cryptographic and signals-intelligence agency of the United States.

To spy on foreign communications, it operates data collection platforms in more than 50 countries and uses airplanes and submarines, ships and satellites, specially modified trucks, and cleverly disguised antennas.

It has managed to break the cryptographic systems of most of its targets and prides itself on sending first-rate product to the president of the United States.

Inside the United States, the NSA’s collection is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978 to provide a legal framework for intercepting communications related to foreign intelligence or terrorism where one party is inside the United States and might be considered a “U.S. person.”

Three bits of terminology: The NSA “collects on” someone, with the preposition indicating the broad scope of the verb. Think of a rake pushing leaves into a bin. The NSA intercepts a very small percentage of the communications it collects. At the NSA, to “intercept” is to introduce to the collection process an analyst, who examines a leaf that has appeared in his or her computer bin. (An analyst could use computer software to assist here, but the basic distinction the NSA makes is that the actual interception requires intent and specificity on behalf of the interceptor.) A “U.S. person” refers to a U.S. citizen, a legal resident of the United States, or a corporation or business legally chartered inside the United States.

So the big question everyone wonders is: does the NSA read my e-mail? Based on the public statements of the former director of the National Security Agency, Justice Department attorneys, and others involved in NSA operations—as well as confidential information provided to the authors and verified independently by officials read in to the programs—here is how to tell if the NSA spies on you:

1. If you regularly call people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen, your telephone records have probably passed through an NSA computer. Most likely, however, if you’ve been calling rug merchants or relatives, no one at the NSA knew your name. (A computer program sanitizes the actual identifying information.) Depending on the time, date, location, and contextual factors related to the call, a record may not have been created.

2. If you’ve sent an e-mail from an IP address that has been used by bad guys in the past (IP addresses can be spoofed), your e-mail’s metadata—the hidden directions that tell the Internet where to send it (that is, the To and From lines, the subject line, the length, and the type of e-mail) probably passed through a server. The chances of an analyst or a computer actually reading the content of an e-mail are very slim.

3. If you are or were a lawyer for someone formally accused of terrorism, there is a good chance that the NSA has or had—but could not or cannot access (at least not anymore)—your telephone billing records. (N.B.: A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report notes that the FISA Amendments Act does not require material erroneously collected to be destroyed.)

4. If you work for a member of the “Defense Industrial Base” on sensitive projects and your company uses Verizon and AT&T, your e-mail has likely been screened by NSA computers for malware.

5. Before 2007, if you, as an American citizen, worked overseas in or near a war zone, there is a small chance that you were “collected on” by a civilian NSA analyst or a member of the NSA’s Central Security Service (the name given to the military service elements that make up a large part of the NSA’s workforce).

6. If you, from September 2001 to roughly April 2004, called or sent e-mail to or from regions associated with terrorism and used American Internet companies to do so, your transaction records (again, without identifying information) were likely collected by your telecommunications company and passed to the NSA. The records were then analyzed, and there is a tiny chance that a person or a computer read them or sampled them. The NSA would ask telecommunications companies for tranches of data that correlated to particular communities of interest, and then used a variety of classified and unclassified techniques to predict, based on their analysis, who was likely to be associated with terrorism. This determination required at least one additional and independent extraneous piece of evidence.

7. There is a chance that the NSA passed this data to the FBI for further investigation. There is a small chance that the FBI acted on this information.

8. If you define “collection” in the broadest sense possible, there is a good chance that if the NSA wanted to obtain your transactional information in real time and knew your direct identity (or had a rough idea of who you are), they can do so, provided that they can prove to a FISA judge within seventy-two hours that there is probable cause to believe you are a terrorist or associated with a terrorist organization.

9. If the NSA receives permission from a judge to collect on a corporation or a charity that may be associated with terrorism, and your company, which is entirely separate from the organization in question, happens to share a location with it (either because you’re in the same building or have contracted with the company to share Internet services), there is a chance that the NSA incidentally collects your work e-mail and phone calls. It is very hard for the agency to map IP addresses to their physical locations and to completely segregate parts of corporate telephone networks. When this happens, Congress and the Justice Department are notified, and an NSA internal compliance unit makes a record of the “overcollect.”

10. If any of your communications were accidentally or incidentally collected by the NSA, they probably still exist somewhere, subject to classified minimization requirements. (The main NSA signals-intelligence database is code-named PINWALE.) This is the case even after certain collection activities became illegal with the passage of the 2007 FISA Amendments Act, the governing framework for domestic collection. The act does not require the NSA to destroy the data.

11. If you are of Arab descent and attend a mosque whose imam was linked through degrees of association with Islamic charities considered to be supporters of terrorism, NSA computers probably analyzed metadata from your telephone communications and e-mail.

12. Your data might have been intercepted or collected by Russia, China, or Israel if you traveled to those countries. The FBI has quietly found and removed transmitters from several Washington, D.C.–area cell phone towers that fed all data to wire rooms at foreign embassies.

13. The chances, if you are not a criminal or a terrorist, that an analyst at the NSA listened to one of your telephone conversations or read one of your e-mail messages are infinitesimally small given the technological challenges associated with the program, not to mention the lack of manpower available to sort through your irrelevant communications. If an unintentional collection occurred (an overcollect), it would be deleted and not stored in any database.

WHAT SAFEGUARDS EXIST TODAY?

From what we could figure out, only three dozen or so people inside the NSA have the authority to read the content of FISA-derived material, all of which is now subject to a warrant. Can the NSA share FISA product on U.S. persons with other countries? By law it cannot and does not. (The FBI can, and does.) What is the size of the compliance staff that monitors domestic collection? Four or five people, depending on the budget cycle. How many people outside the NSA are privy to the full details of the program? More than one thousand. How can you find out if you’ve been accidentally or incidentally surveilled? You can’t. You can sue, but the government will invoke a state secrets privilege, and judges will probably agree—even when you can prove without any secret evidence that there is probable cause to believe that you were surveilled.

The NSA’s general counsel’s office regularly reviews the “target folders”—the identities of those under surveillance—to make sure the program complied with the instruction to surveil those reasonably assumed to have connections to al-Qaeda. They do this by sampling a number of the folders at random. How do we know the program isn’t expanding right now, pushing the boundaries of legality, spying not just on suspected terrorists but on American dissidents? We don’t. But if it is, and over a thousand people are involved, how much longer can that secret last?

An independent investigator from New York was arrested for asking state officials questions and discussing the investigation on YouTube. His bail is set at $50,000.

As so called terrorist attacks and mass shootings seem to be happening more frequently, the criminal police state is cracking down on activists exercising their right to free speech , and making ludicrous examples out of clearly innocent people.

Activist Jonathan Reich has been charged with making threats to state officials , particularly medical examiner Wayne Carver, after allegedly calling his office and questioning the official Sandy Hook narrative.

Perhaps more importantly, he posted YouTube videos in which he pointed out Dr. Wayne Carver’s strange behavior and irritability when being asked questions on the day of the shooting. Not only that, but since his arrest, his YouTube account has been suspended.

For independently investigating this event and calling a ‘state official’, he is being charged with making threats to state officials, and his bail is set at $50,000. So when will activists not be locked in cages for unconstitutional laws, in an obvious attempt to silence their contagious objective thinking?

Maybe people putting their right to free speech to good use won’t be locked in cages so often if we spread the word about these incidents.

Late Tuesday night the Connecticut State Senate passed SB 802, An Act Concerning the Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food.

WASHINGTON, DC – Activists protest against agricultural biotech company Monsanto outside the White House on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. Monsanto, which engineers genetically modified seeds, recently benefited from a section buried in the latest budget bill that allows the agribusiness giant to plant genetically-modified crops without judicial review to determine whether or not their crops are safe. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The statewide GMO labeling bill now makes its way to the State House of Representatives under the title HB 5717.

After a daytime rally brought out over 500 supporters, Senators Don Williams and John McKinney introduced the bill for a vote on the Senate Floor. Connecticut Senators voted 35-1 to pass the bill. The only Nay vote came from state Senator Rob Kane, R-Watertown. GMO labeling is reported to be supported by 90% of the State.

The likelihood of the House version of the bill passing is uncertain. House Democrats have expressed concern over the language of the bill, which would require at least 3 neighboring states to enact similar legislation for it to become law by July 1, 2015. If 3 other states do not act on similar legislation it will be adopted a year later in 2016.

House Speaker Brandon Sharkey told the Hartford Courant, “I’m concerned about our state going out on its own on this and the potential economic disadvantage that could cause. I would like to see us be part of a compact with some other states, which would hopefully include one of the bigger states such as New York.”

According to the language of the bill Genetically Modified or Genetically Engineered means “any food produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material changed by (1) in vitro nucleic acid techniques such as recombinant DNA techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles or (2) fusing cells that are not in the same taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or recombination”.

Agricultural and chemical companies have done the engineering to increase crop yields and resistance to insects. Proponents of the technology believe the public is misinformed on the controversial topic. Supporters of labeling, however, cite a growing number of studies that have shown health problems in animals who have consumed GMO corn and say products, particularly damage of the liver, kidneys, and bone marrow.

So what exactly is covered under the bill?

Under the section titled “Labeling Requirement” we find:

“Starting July 1, 2014, food that is genetically-engineered or partially produced with genetic engineering offered for retail sale in the state is misbranded if it is not labeled accordingly.”

Pretty straightforward. Now, under “Exemptions” we find a list that is a bit longer.

Some of the products that would be exempt include: food served or sold in a restaurant for immediate consumption, as well as alcoholic beverages and farm products sold at the farmer’s markets, roadside stands and pick-your-own farms.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the bill, and likely surprising for supporters of labeling, is the fact that animals who have been fed GMO food do not have to be labeled.

“Exemptions

The bill exempts from the labeling requirement:

1. food from a non-genetically-engineered animal even if it was fed or injected with a genetically-engineered food or drug;”

As a number of studies have shown humans that consume animals fed GMO products also face health issues. Without a full labeling measure that goes all the way to include animals fed GMOs, much of the bill is meaningless. Even more so when you realize “The bill does not establish a penalty for, or consequences of, misbranding.”

Essentially, if the bill passed in it current form it would be the beginning of getting labeling started, but without any clear language on what will happen if companies do not comply it may not be strong enough for supporters of GMO labeling.

One strong point of the bill is the creation of standards for Genetically Engineered crops by the Department Of Agriculture. Under the section titled, “Farmers Best Practices” we see:

“The bill requires DOAG to adopt regulations establishing best practices for farmers who grow or raise a genetically-engineered crop for trade or sale in the United States. The regulations must require the farmers to implement the practices to (1) eliminate or minimize the impact of genetically-engineered crops on neighboring lands and (2) minimize herbicide use to eradicate herbicide-resistant weeds.”

While this step in the right direction, many are left wondering how to trust another government bureaucracy with our health? Particularly when taking into account how entrenched Bio-Technology corporations, especially Monsanto, are within the United States Government (see: Michael Taylor, Clarence Thomas).

For those seeking to free themselves from Genetically Modified Organisms, growing your own food is one of the biggest steps towards independence. By choosing to start a patio garden, a backyard garden, or invest in a local community garden, we free ourselves from the bondage of traditional grocer/consumer relationship.

The efforts of consumers pushing back against the Genetically Engineered Food movement is what caused Whole Foods and other larger retailers to announce they would begin phasing out the technology. The hard work of consumers and activists is the driving force behind labeling efforts around the nation. Not only can we use our dollar and voice to help keep our food supply clean, we can use this power to break the food monopolies being constructed by giant corporations around the world.

If you care about this topic get involved in the Global Day of GMO Awareness on May 25th, 2013.

Events surrounding the Boston Bombing, and the alleged suspects, continue to deepen as a Hollywood-like fiction is now playing out in the real world, once again.

ORLANDO, FL – MAY 22: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) evidence response agents work outside the apartmentent where a suspected friend of the Boston bombers was shot and killed by FBI on May 22, 2013 in Orlando, Florida. Ibragim Todashev was being questioned by the FBI about his ties to the Boston Marathon bombing suspects when he was killed after attacking the agent. (Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

OpEd

ORLANDO — In what continues to be the most bizarre series of ongoing events, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter, Ibragim Todashev, was shot and killed in his apartment by the FBI just before midnight last night. Authorities believed the man to be a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the alleged Boston bombing suspects. Tamerlan has also been said to be alive by some, including a family member after a video surfaced of Tamerlan being stuffed into a police car naked by Boston Police.

We also must question the late night visit paid to, Todashev, the MMA fighter, by the FBI. It was like an interrogation. According to the field agents, Todashev made a fast move that got him shot and killed.W hy the fast move during an interview? Why were the agents on edge? Some speculate that the FBI was sent there to kill Todashev as he knew crucial details regarding one of the alleged Boston bombing suspects, and was likely a threat to the establishments official story.

Wired’s Danger Room reported, “A friend of Todashev’s who says he was also interviewed by the FBI, Khusn Taramiv, said Todashev was a friendly acquaintance of the elder Tsarnaev brother from Boston. Both are of Chechen origin, but did not meet in Chechnya, Taramiv told the local NBC affiliate WESH-TV.

According to Taramiv, Todashev knew Tsarnaev from the tight-knit community of Chechens in Boston. Todashev spoke with Tsarnaev about a month before the bombings, possibly on Skype, after noticing him online; Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name was in Todashev’s phone. Taramiv said that Todashev didn’t know anything about the bombings and wasn’t any sort of extremist. Todashev apparently got his green card recently and was planning a trip to Chechnya to see his parents. According to Taramiv, Todashev never owned a weapon and worried that the FBI was trying to set him up in connection to the bombings.

Todashev was also arrested recently in what Taramiv described as a parking lot altercation with two men who jumped him. A former mixed-martial arts fighter, there are a number of YouTube videos purporting to show his fighting career, and this MMA website lists him recording a win in a single bout. (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a boxer in Massachusetts.)”

All of this now raising questions by common folk.

It seems as the brothers (bombing suspects) are possibly being set up patsies or are working directly with intelligence agencies to portray a Hollywood production to the American people, in plain sight.

Dan Dicks, reporting for Press for Truth out of Canada, was able to score a phone interview with Tamerlan’s Aunt. During the interview, she positively identified the man being stuffed into the police car in the video is Tamerlan, signifying he is still alive despite what has been reported by authorities.

To top it off on May 6, 2013, I reported that the bombing suspects family sought a 2nd autopsy as they did not belive the official story. An excerpt from the article reads, “Since the Boston bombing suspects were named the family has been openly suspicious about the official government story, even insisting that the whole ordeal is a set up. So far there have been conflicting reports about the fate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, some say he is the naked man that was taken into police custody weeks ago while the official story states that he was killed while fighting with police.

According to CNN:

For nearly two weeks, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s body lay unclaimed at the Boston medical examiner’s office. A funeral home now has the remains and a quest is underway to find him a resting place in Massachusetts. But first, he will undergo a second “independent” autopsy demanded by his relatives, a family spokeswoman said.

The other suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was actually unarmed when he was shot and arrested inside the boat that he was found in. These details are only the latest and most damning

As we reported last week New Hampshire State Representative Stella Tremblay has recently suggested that the Boston Bombings could be a “Black Ops” government job and says that people should think for themselves in coming to conclusions.”

And if that’s not enough. It was also reported by Infowars.com on April 29, 2013 that the original bombing suspect, Sunil Tripathi, was found dead in Providence River.

Currently there is no commercial growing of Genetically Modified (GM) crops for commercial growing in the United Kingdom, only an experimental trial of GM Wheat which started in 2012, but now the Prime Minister’s personal scientific adviser; Sir Mark Walport and others are pushing an agenda to allow GM crops from Biotech firms such as Monsanto to be grown for commercial use.

The supermarket giants said suppliers had told them that non-GM feed for poultry is now too difficult and too expensive to obtain. There are also concerns that there is a risk non-GM and GM animal feed could become mixed up, making it more difficult to police the UK food chain.- M&S, Co-op and Sainsbury’s say chickens will be fed on GM soya

This is primarily because Monsanto soya grown in the US and Brazil (where a lot of the feed is imported from) is over 80% genetically modified.

Sir Mark said it was his ‘job to advise on the science and it is then the politician’s job to decide how to use that … The final decision is a political decision’.